Integral of product of infintesimal volume

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the integral of the product of infinitesimal volume and the square of the electric field, which is said to represent the energy in a charge configuration. While the formula suggests that energy should always be positive due to squaring the electric field, questions arise regarding the energy calculations for specific charge configurations, like spherical or cylindrical distributions. Participants highlight that point charges are models, and the energy associated with equal and opposite charges can yield conflicting results depending on the formula used. The work required to position charges is emphasized as independent of the method of charge placement, reinforcing the concept of conservative forces. Overall, the conversation seeks clarity on the apparent contradictions in energy calculations for different charge arrangements.
vijaypandey93
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I'm following the book ''introduction to electrodynamics by D.J. Griffiths''. As he has written that the formula ''integral of product of infintesimal volume with the square of electric field'' gives us the energy contained in a charge configuration that is always positive because we're encountering square.He has justified it by saying that it even considers the fabrication of charges and as we know the fabrication of point charge involves infinite energy.But why do i get a definite value when i calculate the energy of a charge configuration like spherical or cylindrical,rather if I'm following his argument correctly then in spherical,this formula should take into account of fabrication of all the charges and that's certainly infinite.what's that in his argument that I'm not getting?Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
okay but what'd we get if we calculate the energy due to equal and opposite charges?should it be positive or negative?according to the formula statrd above,it'll always be positive.and using the formula [k(q1)(q2)]/r,it's negative.can you please justify how?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thread 'Why can't Solar panels be hemispherical, or a curved strip type?'

comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
View full post »

Similar threads

I In ##\nabla\cdot\vec{E}## why can ##\nabla## pass through the integral?
Replies
8
Views
1K
I Question regarding the energy stored in a conductor
Replies
17
Views
2K
I Seeking better explanation of some quantum stats formulae
Replies
3
Views
1K
A Weyl tensor and coordinate acceleration
Replies
12
Views
2K
What Volume Is Integrated Over for Dipole Moment in Griffiths' Electrodynamics?
Replies
2
Views
2K
How do integrals actually work?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Integration of the Outer Product of a Basis
Replies
1
Views
2K
Energy of charge distributions,advantage of one equation vs the other?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Expression for volume charge density of a sphere
Replies
16
Views
12K
Magnetic field of a rotating disk with a non-uniform volume charge
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top